Propertarianism: The Philosophy of the West in Scientific Terms

A reader recently submitted a question regarding the differences between propertarianism and national socialism. Below is the original question, followed by a comparative analysis of the distinctions separating the two ideologies.

I’ve been reading your posts. Propertarianism sounds an awful lot like national socialism. Maybe there is something Im missing. But, I’d be interested, if you have time, just to know what perhaps the major difference is. –Reader

Well, you know, that depends on your definition of national socialism.

In the choice of Nationalism vs. Universalism, I suggest nationalism in order to force groups to pay the high cost of domesticating their own people educationally, normatively, culturally, economically, and politically, rather than forcing other groups to pay for that domestication. This is compatible with natural law (reciprocity), where universalism is not, because it consists of forcing others to pay the cost rather than you paying the cost of revolution, reformation, and reeducation.

In the scientific vernacular, socialism refers to a political and economic system whereby production, distribution, exchange, and reward, are determined by a bureaucratic government, in order to ensure equidistribution, despite unequal contribution to production. In other words, turning a society into the equivalent of an 18th-19th Century factory.

In the scientific vernacular, capitalism refers to a political and economic system whereby all production, distribution, exchange, and reward are determined by market forces.

In classical liberalism, and social democracy, some degree of the proceeds of mutual cooperation in markets is captured by the state and used to produce commons outside of market competition. In Christian monarchies, these goods are determined by the monarchic administration. In classical liberalism, these goods are determined by those who produce (the middle classes), and in social democracy these goods are determined by majority (which means the working and underclasses).

Since this market (private) and non-market (public) activity always and everywhere exists, we are all merely discussing which class has a monopoly on the decision-making, given the available proceeds from cooperation (taxation).

Furthermore, the distribution of that taxation across the population. Additionally, the amount of that taxation at any point in the population.

At present:

A) The economic mainstream seeks to maximize takings and maximize commons. However, that is because they do not measure all capital changes (intangibles like trust, group traits, and survivability from shocks).

B) We know the current targeting methods (gdp, interests rates) do not work.

C) The Austrian prediction (exacerbation of cycles until collapse) appears to be correct.

D) We have only to resort to direct inflation by redistribution of liquidity to consumers in times of shocks, despite the fact that

E) This will create a dependence upon redistributions, only exacerbating larger and longer cyclic shocks.

So, what I propose instead is (a) nationalism, in fact, collections of city states, yes, and (b) redistribution, yes, but (c) markets for the production of commons, and the total elimination of the political class other than a monarchy as a judge of last resort. And (d) we pay underclasses (those who are unproductive) not to reproduce. Because (e) it is possible to create a constitution under rule of law that is not open to interpretation, only to expansion of suppression of parasitism.

But when you say “national socialism,” I don’t really know what that means, other than to say that we run the government in the interest of the tribe, using rule of law, without engaging in discretionary rule.

Now, compare fascism’s version of “national socialism,” that’s a very different thing, with a very strong political class, and the use of aesthetics and propaganda to reinforce the hero worship (Caesarism) of that political class, and…that is just something I would rail against. We can laud our generals in times of war, our kings in times of peace, each other in times of prosperity, and our ancestors, thinkers, artists, scientists, engineers in times of stress, and nature, her gifts, and her seasons in times of sacredness.

Why? Those things are true and difficult to corrupt into deceits that manipulate us. Rousseau and Kant tried to create a secular version of Christianity, and it led to Marx’s destruction of civilization.

Our ancient ancestors never made the mistakes of the Semites, but in our time of weakness, the Eastern (Syrian) Byzantine Empire imposed Semitic superstition on us by force. And we only rescued ourselves from that Dark Age during the Viking conquests, the Crusades, and the Hansa, by taking back responsibility for ourselves, and our achievements, instead of submitting to the evil god of Middle Eastern slaves.

Why? Because our origins are in the militia. The voluntary army of individually-sovereign warriors, who submit to no one.

We will continue to turn ourselves into gods, and drag mankind kicking and screaming behind us, if we preserve our sovereignty as a militia of warriors, each of whom is a shareholder in the nation itself. We die when the militia dies.

I studied fine art, art history and art theory, a little political science, as well as some electronic engineering in college. But it’s art theory and art history that has framed my thinking about mankind.